Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by midwestphd, Feb 6, 2013.
Given I do basically the same thing on my side of it, I dig.
Not necessarily. Moving the body could account for it.
I'm convinced, whatever that does for you.
p41 In the tote was a broken brush splotched by paint. Splinters were on the floor beside the tote. It was a major find because the broken brush matched the fractured end of...
p254 Then we had the experts assess why a tiny splinter had been found in Jon[Benet's] vagina. The cellulose splinter was believed to have come from the same paintbrush that ...
p342 The splinter in the vagina had caused a disagreement among the examiners. Some examiners said it had been in the vagina as long as a week, but the detectives sided with....
That a six year old as conscious as JB of her attire would choose such huge panties, not to mention her mother giving in to such a request, will not make sense to many of the moms here. In my opinion, of course. (Dave, you've been posting on WS a while and probably remember this linked post below from cynic.)
About the redressing and the issue of huge Bloomies: Sometimes one has to acknowledge that there are old posts here which have provided such excellent information on a topic, well, I dont know what else to say except that this was an awesome post with illustrations on the oversize Bloomies. (Hoping its ok, cynic, to bring it forward.) http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Bloomingdales-panties&p=5962495#post5962495
Moving the body would account for what? The blood and the urine? The blood, perhaps, but not the urine. The evidence shows that was alive when she urinated, there is urine through two layers of clothing and onto the carpet. She may have been at point of death, but she was not dead.
The killer wiped the pubic area. The panties were down when he did this. After he did this, he pulled the panties up. If he – or, whoever – changed the panties, then surely they would have changed them during this process and while Jonbenet was alive because she urinated in the new panties.
Because there are blood spots, suggesting that the blood was not washed away or diffused by the urination, I think that we can say that the blood was likely deposited after the urination. We already know that the sexual assault occurred at or near point of death.
So, we have urine while alive, and blood after death. The panties, if changed, were changed before the urine, so they would have to have been changed before death.
If the wiping came after the sexual assault, then the panties had to have been changed before the wiping – once again, while Jonbenet was still alive. This would mean changing the panties, Jonbenet urinates, pulling down the changed panties for the assault and the wiping, and then pulling the changed panties back up. None of this makes sense. And, there is no evidence that supports any of it.
All of which would be logical reasons for a Ramsey to conceal it. Why does an unkown intruder bother?
The same logic applies; to evade LE, to avoid being labeled a sexual predator/child molestor, to remain free, etc.
Well, here we are largely in agreement, Delmar largely didn't know what he was talking about. Tied as per his instructions, using 1/4" nylon line, the knot slips, in the direction of tightening, but does not loosen easily. That's a major reason that I doubt it was used as an EA device - too great a danger of strangulation. (I had a hard time removing my "test garrotte" from my arm)
If the paintbrush was held onto while pulling, force was applied to the handle - namely pulling force.
That's possible. That would mean either she was put to bed wearing the 12s, or that she changed into them at some later point, perhaps after wetting her bed?
I'll go along with that, as a possibility. Pulling things back up may have been more an automatic response than an intent to hide the SA. I'm still perplexed as to the need to conceal the body in the WC given that the next step, for the intruder, is to get out of Dodge. (Please, please, my sanity cannot take another round of the theory that the kidnapper still intended to collect the ransom)
I won't try to list each and every, I'll just give a few examples.
Patsy made the 911 call. We can argue about whether or not JR told her to, whether or not JR shoulda/coulda prevented it if he wished, whether or not they'd want to call the police with the body in the basement, but there is no disagreement that PR placed the call. An uncontested, or "agreed upon" fact.
JB was dead in the house when the 911 call was made - fact. A RN was found and we know how it reads - fact. JBR was stiff with rigor when JR brought her body upstairs -fact. JB ate pineapple sometime that night - fact. There was a broken window in the basement -fact.
JBR ate pineapple with JR or BR or an intruder -red herring, because there is no way to prove it and if you decide that one version is likely it will skew your analysis of the case w/o being based in fact. There was a scream - red herring because a) M. Stanton is a flake and unreliable as a witness, so we don't know there was a scream, and b) even if we assume there was a scream, and it was from JBR, it doesn't tell us who made her scream. The size 12s. It's a fact she was wearing them. But who put them on her? why? We can theorize all day but we can never be sure. It's one of those "can't get there from here" situations. You can't solve the crime by speculating on who put the 12s on her or why. There's lots of stuff that people spend a lot of time on that can't tell us who did it.
Please give an example of a theory immediately testable which does not rely on conjecture, and is therefore objectively testable. BBM is all we can do with any theory.
Why couldn't it be a postmortem release? Are you simply saying that it happened at or near the time of death? I have to agree, if that's what you are saying. Am I getting too fussy about time here?
The panties had to be down, or off. I think you're probably right that they were on, pulled down, then back up. Likewise the LJs.
He couldn't be near every phone, they had more than one. He could, I suppose, hang on to her at all times, though that might have been slightly suspicious.
It really comes down to this - what is more convincing, that JR would have prevented the call in all possible situations at all possible cost, or that they ginned up a phoney kidnapping to cover a murder ? (Of course this presupposes an RDI outlook) For me, the idea that the kidnapping is even remotely believable with the body in the house is ludicrous, so anything else is relatively easy to believe.
There wouldn't be any evidence that JR tried to prevent the call if PR dialed 911 before he could do anything about it. It's possible he wasn't even in the room at the moment, coming in as she was talking to the operator. He'd be quite foolish to tell the police he'd tried to prevent the call at that point.
Mr Ramsey would not have had to guard every phone and he would not have had to hang onto Mrs Ramsey at all times, or follow her around every minute, everywhere she went. All he had to do was make sure he was present when she found the note (or, find it himself). It would be that easy, and it would take that little time. As soon as the note is found, he points out the threats and discourages Mrs Ramsey from calling 911. So simple, so easy. Let’s at least wait until the kidnappers call, he could say – between 8 and 10. Nothing could have been more important to him than preventing that call. Nothing.
If Mr Ramsey had attempted to delay the call than we could expect this to be evidenced by an actual delay between the time an unsuspecting and innocent Mrs Ramsey rises from sleep, and the when the call was made. Instead of a call at – iirc – 5:52, we’d see a call at 6:20, or 6:30, or 7:00, or... and, instead of Mrs Ramsey saying that her husband told her to call 911, we’d have her telling us about the discussion had, and why they didn’t call right away, etc... instead, the evidence that we have is that the call was made immediately upon discovery of the note, most likely at Mr Ramsey’s instigation, and without disagreement or discussion.
I completely agree that “the idea that the kidnapping is even remotely believable with the body in the house is ludicrous.” This is just one (of many) reasons why I reject RDI.
I do not believe it was used as an EA device.
Yes, some force is applied to the handle, but the length of it isn’t going to have an impact on that. It just has to be long enough to fit in the palm of your hand. Additional length isn’t going to provide and advantage, and it isn’t going to be detrimental. Try it.
I agree, length isn't going to make a difference. I'm just pointing out that it may have broken because it wasn't designed for the force applied to it. If it was pulled with the fingers but the thumb was on the end of the brush the pressure of the thumb could have broken it.
If it broke during the pulling, it made no difference as far as the difficulty of using it as a handle. The pulling didn't suddenly become harder.
It seems to me Doc's theory stands apart from other RDI theories in that it provides a rationale for why there would be a body and a RN in the house. Other RDI theories either don't account, or account for it by finding IDI plausible on the face of it, while at the same time rejecting IDI.
The Barbie nightie is another gray area. There are several theories and possibilities. It may have something to do with the crime, it may not. It may have been pulled out of the dryer accidentally, stuck to the white blanket. When shown a crime photo of the pink nightie laying on the blanket, JR said "that's not supposed to be there". Police let that slip-up go (again). Did he mean the white blanket covering the dead child WAS supposed to be there (and the pink nightie was stuck to it unknowingly?) Was JB originally wearing it and changed into the longjohns and white Gap top later? Detective ST tells us that police do have photos taken at the White's party showing JB WAS wearing that white Gap top with silver star. Yet forensic testing shows that the pink nightie has very small droplets of blood (presumably JB's) as well as DNA from Patsy and BR. If the nightie had been unworn and right from the dryer, it is likely that laundering would have destroyed any DNA, so the presence of it is troubling. Especially the presence of BR's DNA.
Does the presence of the blood drops mean it was near her body when she bled from the vagina? Because her head would was a closed-scalp injury and no blood was present on her scalp or anywhere else on her body from that head bash. There was likely blood in her nose at some point and maybe even her mouth (indicated by the "tan mucus" present-blood turns brownish when exposed to oxygen). We just don't know how the blood got onto the nightie. It could have happened when whoever wiped her down touched the nightie. However the blood on the nightie was described as "drops"- so was it like a splatter? There is still so much we do not know about the pink nightie in relation to the crime.
Theory: Humans evolved from the Great Apes.
Theory: Jack The Ripper.
Theory: There are infinitely many prime numbers.
There is no evidence JB was alive when she urinated. Everyone's bladder voids at death- it could have happened then. There were only a few small drops of blood in the panties. The coroner noted the blood in the panties did not match up to the vaginal injuries-as well as not matching the amount of blood that had been wiped from her thighs and pubic area. I feel the blood drops seeped out after she was re-dressed and whoever left her in that wine cellar never knew about the blood.
Had the clean, new panties been placed on her under the already wet long johns, the panties would have gotten wet just from touching them. Nothing PROVES she was wearing those large panties during the assault. And there is no blood on the long johns either. She likely wasn't wearing them at the time either. She was probably naked, at least from the waist down, at the time of the assault or she was wearing something else (like the pink nightie- and panties in her own size).